Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

I expected Biden to bomb from the get-go. Not just because of his past performances, but because of history: The early frontrunner of the democratic primaries almost never becomes the candidate



Around the Network
Jaicee said:

What I'm watching the closest in this contest is polling out of Iowa because the Iowa Caucus comes first in the primary battle and the winner of the Iowa Caucus typically goes on to become the Democratic Party's nominee for president (e.g. has done so every time this century so far). Because their contest is first and sets the tone for the rest, Iowa voters also typically start tuning into the race earlier than other voters do, and in that way too can serve as an indicator of where things are going.

As things presently stand, there is a clear downward trend for front-runner and party establishment favorite Joe Biden among Iowa voters. In the most recent poll out of Iowa, he garnered 24% support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, as compared with 27% in March before he declared his candidacy and 32% back in December. Moreover, this survey also indicates that his supporters are less enthusiastic than those of many other candidates. While Biden has long been christened the likely winner of the nominating battle (including by me, and also President Trump), I now have strong doubts that that will happen. He had a rocky start, launching his campaign by negotiating various scandals involving inappropriate touching and other forms of questionable behavior toward women, and he's proven since to just be a weak campaigner. He seems to be taking victory for granted and largely not bothering to campaign. He holds few rallies compared to many of his top rivals and doesn't attend town halls, for example. He also finds himself changing positions on issues abruptly (as in the recent case of the Hyde Amendment), which detracts from his vital image as an honest and authentic person, which has been heralded as his main asset. And then there's been just cringe-inducing stuff like the now-infamous Biden-Barack friendship bracelet and even former Obama advisor David Axelrod found to be too much in the way of naked ass-kissing.

Looking at all this, one begins to recall why Biden performed so poorly the last two times he ran for president. I hereby predict that he'll bomb in the upcoming debate and wind up as sort of the Jeb Bush of this contest.

I really think the first debate will shake things up because while these rallies and town halls may get hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of observers, the fact is that the first debate in any given nominating battle is always the single most-viewed event thereof; tens of millions of Americans will tune in. THAT is enough to shake up the race fundamentally, and I think it will. It's impossible to predict who will actually win the nomination at this early stage, but were I a betting person (and admittedly there's a reason I'm not), I'd bet that the most likely person will be Pete Buttigieg. He's more or less in the same lane as Joe Biden ideologically, but has the ability to draw in younger, more enthusiastic voters. He also just comes off as way more competent.

The candidates I'm the most interested in personally are Elizabeth Warren (mainly for her economic policy ideas) and Marianne Williamson (mainly for her foreign policy ideas), though I tend to doubt that either (especially Williamson) will emerge victorious. I also dislike Williamson's lack of governing experience, but just find her to be a unique and interesting candidate nonetheless. Elizabeth Warren has a tremendous ability to communicate complex and detailed policy positions in a way that is clear and easy to understand. It's a quality that makes her a good teacher, and I think that's something we need right now, in addition to a lot of the actual ideas that she stands for.

Obama's charm is wearing off of Joe, and it's showing. I'm hoping for a debate bomb too, and it seems possible. The guy is all hot air and no vision, running because he thinks he's great and it would be fun to be president. Not all that different from who we already have. I think you underestimate how conservative Joe is though. Pete isn't in his lane. Pete is establishment friendly, but there are a lot of people in the establishment that want him to work his way up to stardom, so they won't let him win. Kamala Harris would be the establishment favorite if Joe's star fades, because she's fairly close to the establishment's wants and has a bit of charm to her, like Obama did. Would've maybe been O'Rourke but his star is already fading and he's nearing irrelevance, or Castro, if he ever catches fire and becomes flavor of the month, which he might after the debate.

If you remember me, you'll know I'm a Bernie guy, but Warren is a very close second for me. If momentum truly shifts her way and she's the best chance to beat Creepy Uncle Joe, I'll happily fall in behind her. She'd be exciting to vote for in 2020. If she doesn't win, the eventual nominee would be foolish to not have her either as a running mate or in his eventual cabinet. She'd be the best damn secretary of labor this country ever had, but she'd be amazing in most cabinet positions.



Mnementh said:
Kirsten Gillibrand also hits the donor benchmark for the first two debates, which means she is now pretty safely qualified:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447734-gillibrand-hits-donor-benchmark-to-cement-place-on-first-debate-stage

For the second debates she needs to poll atleast 2% in atleast 3 or 4 polls iirc.



jason1637 said:
Mnementh said:
Kirsten Gillibrand also hits the donor benchmark for the first two debates, which means she is now pretty safely qualified:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447734-gillibrand-hits-donor-benchmark-to-cement-place-on-first-debate-stage

For the second debates she needs to poll atleast 2% in atleast 3 or 4 polls iirc.

I thought that was the 3rd debate?



HylianSwordsman said:
jason1637 said:

For the second debates she needs to poll atleast 2% in atleast 3 or 4 polls iirc.

I thought that was the 3rd debate?

It's for the debates in September. I'm not sure if those are the second or third.



Around the Network
HylianSwordsman said:

Obama's charm is wearing off of Joe, and it's showing. I'm hoping for a debate bomb too, and it seems possible. The guy is all hot air and no vision, running because he thinks he's great and it would be fun to be president. Not all that different from who we already have. I think you underestimate how conservative Joe is though. Pete isn't in his lane. Pete is establishment friendly, but there are a lot of people in the establishment that want him to work his way up to stardom, so they won't let him win. Kamala Harris would be the establishment favorite if Joe's star fades, because she's fairly close to the establishment's wants and has a bit of charm to her, like Obama did. Would've maybe been O'Rourke but his star is already fading and he's nearing irrelevance, or Castro, if he ever catches fire and becomes flavor of the month, which he might after the debate.

If you remember me, you'll know I'm a Bernie guy, but Warren is a very close second for me. If momentum truly shifts her way and she's the best chance to beat Creepy Uncle Joe, I'll happily fall in behind her. She'd be exciting to vote for in 2020. If she doesn't win, the eventual nominee would be foolish to not have her either as a running mate or in his eventual cabinet. She'd be the best damn secretary of labor this country ever had, but she'd be amazing in most cabinet positions.

This I am thinking since she is running and putting out one policy proposal after another. Everything looks thought through. She should be an asset to every president willing to listen to her.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

jason1637 said:
HylianSwordsman said:

I thought that was the 3rd debate?

It's for the debates in September. I'm not sure if those are the second or third.

The third debate. First two debates are held based on the original criteria.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

HylianSwordsman said:

Obama's charm is wearing off of Joe, and it's showing. I'm hoping for a debate bomb too, and it seems possible. The guy is all hot air and no vision, running because he thinks he's great and it would be fun to be president. Not all that different from who we already have. I think you underestimate how conservative Joe is though. Pete isn't in his lane. Pete is establishment friendly, but there are a lot of people in the establishment that want him to work his way up to stardom, so they won't let him win. Kamala Harris would be the establishment favorite if Joe's star fades, because she's fairly close to the establishment's wants and has a bit of charm to her, like Obama did. Would've maybe been O'Rourke but his star is already fading and he's nearing irrelevance, or Castro, if he ever catches fire and becomes flavor of the month, which he might after the debate.

If you remember me, you'll know I'm a Bernie guy, but Warren is a very close second for me. If momentum truly shifts her way and she's the best chance to beat Creepy Uncle Joe, I'll happily fall in behind her. She'd be exciting to vote for in 2020. If she doesn't win, the eventual nominee would be foolish to not have her either as a running mate or in his eventual cabinet. She'd be the best damn secretary of labor this country ever had, but she'd be amazing in most cabinet positions.

Given his ongoing support for Medicare-for-all, I get what you're saying about "Mayor Pete" being an imperfect match for the politics of neoliberalism, but the essential defining factor as to whether one qualifies as being essentially in that lane or else as a progressive in the current world-historic context is one's position on the Green New Deal. That recent report on the pace of global warming has transformed the politics of the left worldwide of late such that we can now see (e.g. not only in the ascendancy of the Sunrise movement in this country, but also in the growth of support for Green parties, for instance, in the recent EU elections) that environmentalism is a top priority issue on the minds of most sincerely left-leaning voters today. The fact that Pete Buttigieg lacks a serious plan in this area akin to AOC's ideas tells you a lot about where he lands at the end of the day. Candidates like yes, Kamala Harris seem more serious about these things to me.

Kamala Harris is running on the Green New Deal, Medicare-for-all, impeachment, slavery reparations...the kind of politics that resulted in a couple of billionaires threatening independent presidential runs earlier this year, which they may well follow through on should someone like Harris, or even more especially Sanders or Warren, become the Democratic nominee. I don't think you'd see a similar billionaire revolt if say Pete Buttigieg became the nominee and that's the point I'm trying to make in connection to him. It's not as if the party establishment is incapable of switching their support from one candidate to another should their first option prove too weak for the job. I've seen that happen already in 2004 when they switched from initially backing Joe Lieberman to backing John Kerry and in 2008 when they switched from backing Hillary Clinton initially to clearly switching to the Obama camp well before the Iowa Caucus. It's not difficult for me to imagine the DNC going from backing Joe Biden to backing Pete Buttigieg down the way. These things happen. But there are always certain candidates whom they would never support; candidates who are too far outside their control, and to that end I find it impossible to imagine the DNC ever supporting Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or even realistically Kamala Harris (given what she's currently running on anyway).

The thing about Kamala Harris to me is that she's a former prosecutor who, for my taste anyway, brings too many of those qualities to her presidential run. She's too lawlerly; too careful and cautious about precisely what she says and how she says it and too slow to produce a lot of clear and definite policy proposals. She'd be more than acceptable to me were she to become the nominee, but I'm not sure she's fully what America needs right now. I would like more decisive leadership than what she offers.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 12 June 2019

Mnementh said:

The third debate. First two debates are held based on the original criteria.

Correct. As it should be. I very much want some of the more obscure candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand to have a real chance to gain the visibility and traction their campaigns badly need and the debates form the far and away best opportunity for that to happen, so I don't want the criteria getting stricter too terribly quickly. This pacing offers just enough time for a more obscure candidate to be seen and heard in a couple debates viewed by tens of millions of Americans and improve in the polls as a result if they're going to.



Jaicee said:
Mnementh said:

The third debate. First two debates are held based on the original criteria.

Correct. As it should be. I very much want some of the more obscure candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand to have a real chance to gain the visibility and traction their campaigns badly need and the debates form the far and away best opportunity for that to happen, so I don't want the criteria getting stricter too terribly quickly. This pacing offers just enough time for a more obscure candidate to be seen and heard in a couple debates viewed by tens of millions of Americans and improve in the polls as a result if they're going to.

Yeah. I think this time the DNC does the right thing with comparatively loose criteria to qualify for debates. I see some critics of that in classical media. That comes from th thinking of politics as some sort of sports: my team has to win against the other team. But in reality politics is about bettering the life of the people. So this process is not only to decide of the next candidate. These debates can pitch policy ideas to a general public. In the debates millions will hear for the first time about UBI and the upcoming problems of automation from Andrew Yang, about the real impact of the endless wars from Tulsi Gabbard, about the destructive results of climate change from Jay Inslee, about the political aristocracy from Marianne Williamson.I don't see any of these candidates have a real shot at the nomination, but pitching their policy ideas, putting focus on current problems will still impact politics. And this is important. Because it is never about who wins in the end. It is about which problems are addressed and how.

Last edited by Mnementh - on 12 June 2019

3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter